Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Orange County committee advances Washington 2 redistricting map after 7-6 vote
Loading...
Summary
The Mid Decennial Redistricting Advisory Committee approved the Washington 2 map 7–6 after public comment and debate over municipal splits, growth projections and data tabulation methods.
The Orange County Mid Decennial Redistricting Advisory Committee voted 7–6 on July 9 to advance the Washington 2 redistricting map, a plan its sponsor said keeps growing communities together while responding to public requests to preserve certain municipal and rural boundaries.
The map’s sponsor, Member Jane Washington, told the committee the plan keeps Horizon West intact, reunites West Orange municipalities around State Road 50 and places Lake Apopka wholly within a single district. "This map reflects community and commissioner requests," Washington said, describing a design he said planned for growth while keeping districts compact and traversable.
Committee counsel David White said the plan meets the constitutional one-person, one-vote requirement, with a maximum population deviation just under 10 percent (reported as 9.51 percent). White told members the map’s numbering complies with the charter and that newly drawn District 7 would be subject to the charter’s initial two-year term provision. He described the plan as a “race-neutral balance of traditional redistricting principles.”
Public commenters who addressed the meeting overwhelmingly voiced support for Washington 2. Resident Adam (Blaine) Bates said the map "creates a structure that represents the differences between Horizon West and the historic communities of Winter Garden, Ocoee, and Oakland." Several other West Orange residents — including James Hunter, Hattie Bryant, Todd Bryant and Sean Legasse — told the committee the map better unites communities that share infrastructure and planning needs.
A separate thread of public comment raised questions about the technical data used to generate demographic reports for submitted maps. Consultant Preeti Mather of ArcBridge Consulting explained that the firm reports "pure numbers" from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Law 94-171 redistricting files (for example "white alone" and "black alone") and that other tools (notably the public tool Dave’s Redistricting) sometimes present combined categories that can yield different percentages for some racial groups. "We are not manipulating the numbers," Mather said, describing the difference as a matter of how multi-race responses are tabulated.
Several committee members praised elements of the Washington 2 plan and urged tweaks for municipal boundaries. Member Baga said the map recognized Lake Nona and the Lake Nona growth area; Member Spears said the plan better preserves the urban core of Orlando in fewer districts. Other members raised concerns about population distribution and future growth: Member Afong and others said some districts would show larger projected growth and warned these imbalances could require major adjustments after the 2030 census.
The motion to approve Washington 2 was made by Member Spears and seconded by Member Baga. The clerk recorded the roll call; the motion passed 7–6. Members voting yes included Washington, Spears, Baga, Perez (Co-chair), Ochevsky and others; members voting no included Kelsheimer, Afong and several others. (Names in committee roll calls were recorded in the transcript.)
The committee is continuing a multi-stage process: staff said two August meetings (Aug. 12 and Aug. 28) were added to the schedule to accommodate the volume of submitted maps, and the MRAC is tentatively scheduled to present recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 16 (date described as tentative).
The committee’s next meeting will begin consideration of the next group of submitted maps; sponsors were reminded to keep presentations brief to allow adequate time for discussion and potential on-the-fly amendments by consultants.
